Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why did the University of Missouri turn down the Big Ten and join the Southeastern Conference?
This is a good point. albeit breaking new ground in lots of ways.
I think most of us might agree that the college conference names are, anymore, becoming less and less regional in historical affiliation and more and more about money and marketing. But still, there is a certain good point to be made here. Texas football has always been more "Southern" in orientation than anything else. I honestly don't know about how things are in Missouri...but tend to think their natural allies might be better aligned with the midwest schools than southern ones...
So why did the University of Missouri turn down the Big Ten and join the Southeastern Conference?
If my memory serves me correct, Mizzou never turned down anything. The Big 10 didn't offer. From everything I heard they really wanted the Big 10. It certainly would have made more sense for them.
People from states that fought for the Union of the USA.
I agree with this. Those states where most residents were duped into taking up arms to invade the Southern states which wanted nothing more than to peaceably go their own way. Same as did their colonial grandfathers when they seceded from England.
I agree with this. Those states where most residents were duped into taking up arms to invade the Southern states which wanted nothing more than to peaceably go their own way. Same as did their colonial grandfathers when they seceded from England.
You guys just loved your slavery and attacked Federal troops at Fort Sumter.
You guys just loved your slavery and attacked Federal troops at Fort Sumter.
I love the way you northern apologists set yourselves up for destruction.
1. LOL Slavery? The slave trade itself was a purely northern commodity. The NE made a great bunch of money off of it. Read this (and be sure and click on the sub-links...especially northern emancipation and profits):
2. Attacked federal troops? The seven Lower South states had seceded -- by proper legislative/referendum means -- and formed their own independent nation. The offered to negotiate a mutually beneficial defensive/economic alliance with the northern states and pay for property previously owned by the consent of the former united States. They were shunned (because the Lincoln administration needed the tax money from the Southern states), and chose to provoke a war against a people who had done them no wrong. In a nutshell? The Confederate States were a soveriengn nation and they fired upon armed troops -- after offering every honorable opportunity and terms to withdraw beforehand -- of a foreign nation in their own territorial waters. The same way the American colonials would have done had the British maintained a presence in the Boston Harbor.
Its sublimely unnerving to watch, in real time, the mental gymnastics of rationalization the human brain performs when it comes to masculinity, pride, heritage, and tribalism.
Never heard it used out here on the West Coast, but having traveled all through East Asia, it's pretty much anyone who's American.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
